By Henry Stevens, Eunseo Hong, Haris Toogo, Carly Bister, Chiara Fürst

Immigration is one of, if not the most currently discussed and debated about issues in many parts of the world. Common arguments circulate that regard current immigration models as responsible for job loss, ‘demographic replacement’, erosion of identity, increased criminality, religious extremism, cultural incompatibility and more. These numerous narratives can be very difficult to scrutinize individually, let alone altogether. 

While these concerns may all relate to tangible societal issues, at their core, they all reflect an abstract contemplation of what constitutes ‘national identity’. Put simply, national identity refers to how we see ourselves as members of a unified ‘nation’. It includes discussion about what a nation is made up of (people, values, or otherwise), how that nation came to be, and what it takes for an ‘outsider’ to become part of it. 

Distinct from citizenship, which refers to legal status rather than a sense of belonging, these questions of national identity are nearly impossible to fully unpack. This is especially true given the subjective nature of an individual’s feeling of national identity; two American citizens will likely have very different ideas of who and what constitutes an ‘American’.

With the potential contradictory nature of personal anecdotes about national identity, questions about multiculturalism and national identity can be answered through an overview of debates on these topics within academic circles. By breaking down the ways scholars have studied these topics, we can come to a better explanation of these large-scale questions than those offered through the biases of personal experience or political actors. 

What is the nation and who belongs to it?

In 1983, political scientist Benedict Anderson made a landmark contribution to the study of nationalism. His idea of nations as ‘imagined communities’ was highly influential in academic discourse. Though far from a perfect concept (especially given it being a Eurocentric theory), its main contribution was that it suggested that national identity was constantly under creation and ‘imagination’, a cultural phenomenon just as much as it was a social and political one. Despite its potentially artificial nature, identification with such a community has still proved important. Anderson asserted that even if people do not meet in person, they nevertheless construct a type of fraternal image of one another based on shared language, culture, and history within this ‘community’ that is the nation. 

This concept of the nation highlights it as a separate entity to the state. As noted by author Mohamed Berray, being a citizen of a country is not necessarily the same as being a member of a nation. Although the two can be the same, nations are oftentimes at a smaller level than the state; for example, the ‘nation’ of Quebec is distinct from the nation-state of Canada, despite the former being a province of the latter.

As a result of the distinction between states and nations, the acceptance of different immigrant or outsider groups presents a nation with a number of challenges, including the potential for the erosion of what it considers ‘national identity’. Establishing a shared national identity between natives and immigrants is crucial for a host nation that is transitioning to a multicultural society to successfully integrate them. 

Multiculturalism is frequently offered as the best way to resolve immigration-related problems as well as an explanation for how national identity has changed and evolved. Beyond strict integration or ‘unbounded pluralism’, multiculturalism describes how a society accepts and compromises with cultural diversity at the national and community levels. This viewpoint is predicated on the idea that immigrants may coexist peacefully in their new nation, integrating into the community while maintaining their own cultural traits. Multiculturalism highlights that the foundation of cultural richness is the peaceful coexistence of various peoples, civilizations, and lifestyles from a sociological standpoint.

Exclusions and backlash: who doesn’t belong?

While in principle multiculturalism is something to strive towards, not all states are in agreement with it in practice. While the question of national identity concerns who and what constitutes a national group, it also necessarily includes the central question of who does not. Exclusion, in one form, or another is inherent to nationalism. This is a central contradiction to the goals and realities of multiculturalism which continues to create tension within populations worldwide. As part of this, the contemporary rise of right-wing populism throughout many countries has, in many ways, been defined by a renewed focus on who does not get to belong. These ‘others’, whether it be immigrants, minorities, non-citizens, and other ‘outsiders’ not a part of a state’s ‘in-group’, are frequently pointed to as the root of a country’s socio-economic problems. 

Reactionary narratives of ‘others’ being blamed for a society’s problems are becoming more and more common. These defensive, short-term backlashes are in response not just to growing multiculturalism, but to questions of overall national identity as well. Though it is politically convenient to create a scapegoat for socio-economic problems, these types of appeals to ‘us versus them’ dynamics are ultimately flawed, according to scholar Amitai Etzioni. Immigrants, minorities, and other ‘out-groups’ are only the concrete, immediate representations of a process of globalization that occurs in so many less visible ways through the Internet and other forms of cultural exchange.

Numerous Western countries are facing a ‘normative challenge’ posed by these processes, yet France frequently appears within scholarship as a model that is unsustainable. As a core example of a country that expects total ‘assimilation’ of all newcomers and outsiders in order to be considered ‘French’, the consensus of various studies is that such a model is outdated and counterproductive. Assimilation is an ‘identity-blind’ ideology that seeks to reduce differences between the dominant group and non-dominant groups. A recent study by France’s National Institute for Statistics found that at least a third of French people have foreign origins. That number is likely to increase in the future. 

During a recent gathering at the anthropology museum Musée de l’Homme in western Paris, scholars talked about the impact of immigration and colonization on French history. They highlighted that a significant portion of the French population, particularly those on the far right, still hold to an outdated perception of the nation’s identity. Speaking to DW, Naima Huber-Yahi, a historian who specializes in colonial history, said that French far-right politicians promote this outdated vision.

“They pretend being French only includes white people … This narrative stems from the 19th century and has not been updated since. It does not take into account other aspects such as our history of slavery, colonization or migration, nor does it include people of color such as many French living in overseas territories,” she said. “It just doesn’t correspond to today’s reality.”

While reducing differences for the sake of greater societal harmony may seem like a desirable goal, this practice has the consequence of positioning the dominant group’s culture and values as ‘correct’ and other groups’ ideas and identities as ‘incorrect’. As demonstrated in their 2020 study, authors Leslie, Bono, Kim and Beaver found that policies of assimilation led to consistently “low quality intergroup relations, in the form of increased prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping, and reduced policy support” within the dominant group. Furthermore, the expectation that non-dominant groups forfeit their national identity in order to become part of the dominant group has been shown to increase hostility between the two. 

The recent passing of a series of strict citizenship laws exemplifies the political repercussions of these hostilities. This legislation will make it more difficult for children born in France to migrant parents to be granted French citizenship, create limits to immigration numbers, and may even grant the ability to the judicial system to strip French citizenship for those that hold two passports and commit crimes. It is clear that France’s grappling with national identity has taken an increasingly reactionary turn in recent years, with the Netherlands and Germany following suit. 

Unless we cut ourselves off from the world and become an island of hermits, then chances are that the flows of multiculturalism are here to stay. This isn’t to say that making efforts to limit the loss of national culture as a result of globalization and homogenization is inherently a bad thing, though. Rather than resort to exclusions based on fear founded on racist assumptions, a better question that long-term solutions to national identity concerns should strive to answer is simply: what does the nation actually mean? Investigating why a country has come to be and who has been historically included/excluded as part of this process can yield a number of insights, many of which are not necessarily incompatible with multicultural philosophies. 

Examples of multicultural nations

Rather than focussing on countries where national identity has one strict definition, it is more valuable to examine the numerous other countries where this definition is more open-ended. One such country is Canada, a multicultural nation that is explicitly  stated as such in its constitution. More than 200,000 individuals from at least 26 distinct ethnocultural groups immigrate to Canada annually, according to the Canadian Library and Archives. Comprised of sizable Indigenous, French-Canadian, and numerous other immigrant identities, what it means to be ‘Canadian’ is far less universal than it may be in many other European countries.

Determining how multicultural Canada is, however, has been a major topic of debate among intellectuals and politics for several years. While scholars search for a clear answer to the question of whether the country aims to respect the segregation of distinct groups or assimilate varied people, ordinary Canadians appear to have accepted multiculturalism itself as their national identity. According to surveys conducted by Focus Canada since 1997, the proportion of Canadians who consider multiculturalism to be important to Canada’s national identity has continued to trend upward. In 2015, the majority of participants concurred that multiculturalism has a significant role in shaping the national identity.

Although most Canadians view the country’s multicultural diversity positively and believe that immigration strengthens the economy, they are nonetheless ambivalent about how newcomers adjust to their culture. Since Focus Canada first conducted the survey in 1993, the percentage of participants who agreed with the statement “There are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values” has continuously remained over 50%.

In Canada, known as the “country of immigrants,” what does it mean to be an immigrant? Freelance journalist Deanna Cheng, who is based in Vancouver, British Columbia, stated in an interview with the New Canadian Media Collective: “I do tell people my ethnicity is Canadian, but they look at me and ask, ‘No. Where are your parents from?’ That’s when I tell them my parents are from China. Saying I am Chinese-Canadian shuts down any further questions about my background.”

Second-generation immigrants in Canada often share Cheng’s sentiments. Arti Patel, the founding editor of Huffington Post Canada’s Born & raised series, which features the experiences of second-generation immigrants, claims that some second-generation immigrants reject, even dislike, the culture of their parents and embrace “Canadian-ness” in an effort to fit in. 

In Canada, a country that claims to be a symbol of cultural mosaic, confusion with national identity still exists. This can become even more complicated in a place where the nation is not necessarily the same as the state. Scotland is one of four countries that comprises the United Kingdom alongside Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Though it has a certain level of autonomy, it is not independent from the other countries within the UK. As such, UK nationalism is much different than Scottish nationalism; many people in Scotland may identify more with being ‘Scottish’ than as part of the ‘British’ national identity. 

This kind of ‘sub-nationalism’ within a country is only further exemplified within Scotland’s relationship to immigration. A study conducted by Ross Bond and the University of Edinburgh in 2017 found that despite being a nation that has its own components of ‘national identity’ that are separate from the broader United Kingdom, Scotland’s immigrants are to a certain extent more likely to adopt this identity than in the other countries in the UK. Overall, White majority individuals were still more likely than immigrants to identify with being Scottish and more minority groups identified with feeling British than this majority, so these results can’t be completely generalized. Nevertheless, acceptance of Scottish identity by minority groups was still significantly higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland, or England, showing that integration with a ‘sub-nationalism’ was higher.   

“The UK, for a long time, has had a ‘dispersal strategy,’” said Nasar Meer to euronews, who is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Glasgow. “By ‘dispersal,’ they mean moving people who arrive in the southeast—London and the surrounding areas—and shuttling them around the country.”

Bond further concluded that this identification with Scottish national identity was even higher for Pakistani Muslim groups, exemplifying the complex ‘multinationalism’ that exists within the country. Given that Scotland’s current prime minister, Humza Yousaf, is the child of Pakistani immigrants, it is generally clear that Scottish identity is very inclusive of other national identities, which may lead to greater integration and identification with this nationalism by minority groups. 

In expanding the frame of reference to non-Western countries, the notion of a multicultural national identity becomes even more clear. Singapore, one of many pluralistic countries in Asia, exists between upholding tradition and a multicultural national identity. After gaining independence from Malaysia and British colonial rule in 1965, Singapore has developed into a multicultural, cosmopolitan city-state with connections throughout the world. The flow of people, ideas, capital, goods and services has made Singapore a hub of international activity.

Nonetheless, the city-state of Singapore experienced political, social, and ethnic instability as a result of colonial control and the process of geographical separation. Numerous ethnic groups, such as the Malays, Chinese, Indians, and Eurasians, have consciously chosen to separate out while preserving their own cultures. As a result, Singapore’s multiculturalism appears close to pluralism.

In order to organize and integrate the population, the People’s Action Party (PAP), which has ruled Singapore since its independence, instituted a “multiracialism” policy. However, The subtleties and unique qualities of each ethnic group’s traits or culture, such as language, religion, and identity, were not taken into consideration by this policy. Moreover, the existence of severe linguistic heterogeneity that has arisen along with the yearly increase in immigration makes it challenging to implement these government initiatives in practice. Given this context, it is difficult to use the theoretical justification of multiculturalism to define Singapore’s national identity and promote social cohesion.

In response to questions about Singapore’s multiculturalism, Tharman Shanmugaratnam — a recent minister who resigned to run for president of Singapore — stated that simply adding or mixing other cultures with the native culture is not a comprehensive solution. He added: “But we cannot just keep separate cultures exactly as they are – we must keep evolving, and one way to keep evolving is to be very open to each other’s cultures, and absorb something from each other’s cultures.”

Backlash to multiculturalism does exist to varying degrees in diverse countries like Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines and elsewhere. Despite popular and mainstream efforts to suggest otherwise, the realities of diversity experienced in each of these countries demonstrates the salience of constructing a ‘multinational identity’ not just in the West, but in the rest of the world as well. As a result, very singular and strict conceptions of national identity appear to be a rarity rather than the norm.

How can multiculturalism coexist with national identity?

Even if they may be ‘imagined’, national identities carry significance due to the inherent characteristics of nations. The more robust a nation’s sense of collective belonging and trust in its political structure, the smoother its continuity. Patriotism becomes an additional layer when individuals take pride in their membership and give a sense of responsibility within a particular community. 

“It’s usually a good idea for regimes to build some kind of sense of identity with the state,” says, Pippa Catteral to BBC, a professor of history and policy at the University of Westminster in the UK and founder of the academic journal National Identities ” because it leads to them being able to control the territory, control the streets, etc., more effectively.” 

Catterall points out that in terms of institutions like parliament, people usually think of the machinery of government. However, one could argue that a national identity holds equal significance – despite its abstract nature, it can confer legitimacy upon a political system.

According to Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama who is an American political scientist and economist, “Nationalists tell the disaffected that they have always been core members of a great nation and that foreigners, immigrants and elites have been conspiring to hold them down”. Fukuyama observes that leaders who have multiracial perspective start to focus on smaller marginalized groups in place of developing unanimity within large collectives. 

Refugees also further complicate the dynamic of immigration; people who are fleeing their homes — likely due to events outside of their control — end up in countries that expect them to quickly forget where they came from for the sake of ‘social cohesion’. Relocating people who seek asylum is not uncommon throughout Europe.

While there are many complicated elements to national identity that evade an easy answer, what is clear is that burying one’s head in the sand is not an effective strategy. Numerous case studies by scholars and close examinations of the realities of national identities in different countries reveal their own truths about multiculturalism. While they are without a doubt compatible ideas, multiculturalism and national identity interact in ways that ensure that they are both constantly evolving alongside one another.